dagblog - Comments for "Solar Power case study: which jobs + consumer costs"

old news not necessarily

artappraiser — Thu, 25 Jan 2018 01:10:07 +0000

In reply to "even though Tesla would have

old news not necessarily always a waste of time. I followed your first Axios link above to this July Reuters piece for which Axios made a last minute recommend:

Go deeper: Reuters just published an in-depth piece about how even the prospect of new Trump administration solar trade restrictions is affecting the sector.

and while it didn't help with your project on getting a grip on the facts, I found it extremely helpful on all the players involved with this and their possible motives in wanting or not wanting tariffs. (Who knew Reuter was producing such impressive business news?)

More on those solar jobs:

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 25 Jan 2018 00:54:00 +0000

In reply to "even though Tesla would have

More on those solar jobs:

Trump has imposed a 30% tariff on foreign-made solar cells and modules, with the White House expressing alarm at a huge rise in imported components “spurred on by artificially low-priced solar cells and modules from China”.

But solar installers warned that the tariff, which will reduce to 15% within four years, will cost US jobs rather than protect them.

The Solar Energy Industries Association said 23,000 jobs would be lost in 2018, pointing out that most solar manufacturing in the US revolves around making parts for cheaper imported panels, rather than the cells and panels themselves.

The installation of panels accounts for around 130,000 further jobs.

“It boggles my mind that this president – any president, really – would voluntarily choose to damage one of the fastest-growing segments of our economy,” said Tony Clifford, chief development officer of Standard Solar, which finances and installs panels.

Bill Vietas, president of RBI Solar, which makes mounting systems for panels, added: “The US solar manufacturing sector has been growing as our industry has surged over the past five years.

“Government tariffs will increase the cost of solar and depress demand, which will reduce the orders we’re getting and cost manufacturing workers their jobs.”

"even though Tesla would have

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 24 Jan 2018 15:19:48 +0000

In reply to Here's another good detailed

"even though Tesla would have benefited from this tariff because of Buffalo, they lobbied against it." - except Tesla likely benefits if the tariff passes and if it doesn't, so which way benefits their feet in the industry the most? I can suffer losses in 1 division and have huge revenue increases in another. My guess is that hardware usually has low margins, so Tesla doesn't make much on hardware one way or the other - it makes much more money through installation projects paying a percentage on time & materials, or even having the market so overhyped and hot that they're able to charge irrational prices for total installation.

Okay, I wrote that without looking anywhere.

So it turns out that solar panels are about 1/5 the cost of a total installation, so even a 30% tariff is only a 6% increase on entire systems. The battery & inverter can run 1/3 of the installation, and I believe are more the parts that Tesla focuses on, while the installation manpower seems to be about $5K no matter what, which can be 1/3-1/7 the total cost. There are then state subsidies which play a huge role in making this affordable - 30% of total system in incentives or tax breaks.

Tesla largely abandoned its own solar panels for generic 3rd party ones. (Panasonic) There is little money to be made there, especially with the R&D required to keep up with the competition. Make them in the US? even harder to maintain margin. Tesla's big problem is the drop in # of installations, while its plan all along was to monopolize the large home battery pack - as long as the unit installs increase, they come closer to that goal, so cheap imported solar panels are fine by them. What they are doing is cutting the lower pricepoint activities and focusing on higher end installs to keep their margins up.

Here's another good detailed

oldenGoldenDecoy — Wed, 24 Jan 2018 07:08:14 +0000

In reply to Solar Power case study: which jobs + consumer costs

Here's another good detailed article . . .

January 22, 2018 | Electrek

Trump tariff on imported solar panels at 30% – residential projects could increase $750-1000, cost up to 23,000 jobs

The Trump administration released its official ruling regarding the Suniva Section 201 case, and stated that they agree that the nation’s solar industry has taken damage as a result of global solar actions.

The administration has chosen to impose a 30% tariff on all imported solar cells and solar panels, decreasing 5% a year for four years. The first 2.5GW of solar cells imported will not be tariffed, to protect the domestic solar panel industry.

The tariffs are far below what Suniva and SolarWorld requested.

The administration released its thoughts on the Section 201 case via a fact sheet: Section 201 Cases: Imported Large Residential Washing Machines and Imported Solar Cells and Modules. The document’s first half is associated with washing machine imports, while the second half focuses on the Suniva trade case.

If Tesla and Panasonic can get their solar cell and panel manufacturing going in Buffalo, it won’t pay any tariffs. Either way, the first 2.5GW of solar cells imported aren’t tariffed – so, long term, Tesla might have dodged a bullet even if they plod along.

Interestingly, even though Tesla would have benefited from this tariff because of Buffalo, they lobbied against it.

It continues on it great detail-->

~OGD~